Ethiopia: Where do we go from here?

NARIOBI (HAN) April 7. 2016. Public Diplomacy & Regional Security News. By Teshome Abebe (PhD) The following text of the speech was presented at Vision Ethiopia Conference on March 27, 2016. Because of time limitations, some paragraphs may not have been presented. I attended the conference as an academic only representing myself, and not as a member of a political party or any other group. As a result, the views expressed are mine alone. No financial support was requested or received from any individual or group, and my assignment was to respond to the following questions:
Quo Vadis? Where Do We Go From Here? Who Should Do What to Guarantee Democracy, Transition, and Unity in Post Conflict Ethiopia?

1. Background

Where We Have Been

There is no need to dwell too long on this part of my presentations, as all of you know so well where we have been over the past many decades. Suffice it to state that part of the failures in our past have to do with the excessive need to maintain and exercise power by the Atse Haile Selassie regime as well as by the Derg. In both cases, we have witnessed that they stayed in power too long; refused to listen to the citizenry; and never prepared the country for a peaceful transition of power in any meaningful manner. The result has been very familiar: assume power by force; get chased out of office by force. The price the nation has had to pay for this state of affairs or dysfunction has been enormous. We have lost too many and too much both in lives and treasury; we have lost enormously in opportunity cost; and for all intents and purposes, the nation is still backward: we still can’t feed ourselves; and we have taught the young an incredibly bad lesson: that disordered force is the norm in Ethiopia. In my opinion, this is a truly sad state of affairs. On this, I am certain that there is general agreement on all sides.

B) Where We Are Now

As I leave where we have been and transition to where we are now, I am afraid that I don’t have too many things that are encouraging either. Talking about where we are now requires one to take a sort of a survey – kind of a meta-study of the events and then conditions in which we find our country today. Let me first state that when we talk about the conditions in our homeland, we are not waging a vendetta or a personal campaign against anyone; rather it is simply an examination of the unflattering facts.

Though you are all students of Ethiopian affairs, let me try to summarize the situation in the following manner. This summary is based on the review of the literature of important studies; a thorough reading of the opinions and positions of people in academics, the professions, and most of all, of people in government; and a personal assessment of events and conditions on the ground in Ethiopia.

The African Development Bank, in a report on economic outlook in Ethiopia, recently stated that, “Ethnic Federalism has heightened and transformed historical territorial conflicts into contemporary inter-regional boundary conflicts. Inter-clan conflicts have begun to inform perceived or real disenfranchisement and inequitable distributions of economic and/or political benefits. Radicalism has also underlain sporadic religious clashes.”

Where we are today, can charitably be described as, what Thomas Hobbes referred to as “the chaos of competing enemies”. This chaos of the competing enemies afflicting the country is a classic strategy manufactured to sow conflict. When resources are short (the resource here could also be power), people divide, scapegoating one another. What ensues is the turning of one region against another; one culture against another; older people against younger ones; one political party against the others; leaders against members; and one idea against another. Hobbes called this the pre-social pre-political world. For the ruling party, chaos has become power, and an opportunity to remake the world in their preferred configuration.

The ethnic stratification we witness in Ethiopia today, is the result of several factors: the introduction and implementation of the Killil system (a hammer blow to Ethiopian unity) the appearance or perceived appearance of ethnocentrism; the competition along ethnic lines for some common goal, such as power or influence, or a material interest, such as wealth or territory; and the emergence of deferential power. (See Donald Noel). To make matters worse, there is evidence that the competition is driven by self-interest and hostility, and would result in inevitable further stratification and conflict. (See Lawrence Bobo & Vincent Hutchings). These conditions, interwoven with what I will call the policy of ambitious domination, have the potential to produce ethno-national conflict.

Where We Have Consensus

Asserting that we have a general agreement on some things is a dangerous proposition among any group much less among Ethiopians who are very passionate about politics, and even more passionate about their country. Over the past quarter of century, we have debated as well as grieved. People are sad about what has happened in Ethiopia, and they have talked and written about all kinds of topics. I have to admit that this ‘grieving’ process continues even today.

I can safely state, however, that there is an amicable consensus on a number of fronts among the commenting class, and those who are engaged with the issue. The debates we have had over the past 25 years—and they were intensive debates–have rendered some arguments moot, and yielded consensus on others. What are the areas in which we have general consensus?

There is general consensus that we wish to see a Democratic Ethiopia. We have experimented enough with other forms of government, and that the future for Ethiopia must clearly, unambiguously and unalterably be Democratic. An Ethiopia in which democratic institutions thrive; an Ethiopia whose leaders have an unflinching commitment to democratic values; and a country whose leaders have purged themselves of all forms of non-democratic impulses. Of this much, we agree.

There is consensus that we wish to see a united Ethiopia. By this we also mean one country, one people, with differentiated cultures but a common root. Diversity with a common root!

There is consensus that we wish to have an Ethiopia whose sovereignty is not questioned (not left to interpretations): not questioned by outsiders; and certainly not questioned by its children.

There is consensus that we wish to have an Ethiopia whose integrity is not violated. By this, we mean that the assurance of sovereignty is necessary but not sufficient: it must also be respected.

There is consensus that we wish to see a developed Ethiopia. What we wish to have is an Ethiopia that is socially, economically, technologically and scientifically developed.

There is no consensus on the issue of how to deal with the ruling party—the TPLF/EPRDF. I hold the very controversial view that when it comes to engaging the government; we might do better to focus on replacing, reforming, influencing and/or humanizing the TPLF/EPRDF rather than its complete eradication as some would wish to have it. The realistic choice that I think we face isn’t really a choice between an Ethiopia without TPLF/EPRDF and an Ethiopia with only TPLF/EPRDF. The realistic choice we face is between an Ethiopia where Democratic values, buttressed with democratic institutions, are supreme; where human rights are respected and upheld; and where the development process is all-inclusive versus an Ethiopia where these are lacking. Given that choice, the former sounds more appealing to me regardless of who rules the country. This, I believe, is an expansionist (as opposed to a reductionist) view that is not only proper, but also consistent with the principles of inclusion as well as that of true democracy.

Furthermore, I hold the view that the more serious and long-term threats to Ethiopia are not the TPLF/EPRDF or nationalist forces by themselves. Rather it is the coalescing threat on the horizon, that which might emerge from the Arab World. The petro dollar enabled alliance between Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Eritrea, Somalia and Djibouti is likely to become an existential threat, with religion as the driving force, but the desire to weaken Ethiopia as the primary thrust.

III. What is Lacking Or What Must Be Done?

For a variety of reasons, Ethiopians have lacked unity in their responses to the ruling party’s policy of ambitious domination. This has been true of all segments of society. We espouse too many divisions; too many plans; too many groups; too much duplication of effort; and too many personal agendas. It seems to be natural to us, that in an instant, we fall back on an almost tribal urge to defend our side. And as you know, sometimes, one choice precludes another. As a consequence, we are ineffective in our efforts even if we were to come together temporarily. It seems to me that what it is called for here is the Latin imploration ‘in things important, unity’. Remember our own adage ‘Dirr Biabir, Anbesa Yasir’. Yet, it seems that when it comes to meaningful action, the adage gets thrown out the window. There are economic and non-economic explanations for that state of affairs. But regardless of the explanations, what is undeniably true is that we remain intangible to those in power if we are not united. We remain intangible to those that might wish to assist us if we are not united; and we remain intangible to those that wish to dominate us if we are not united. The first duty we should have to each other on the matter of the motherland is unity! Unity based on ‘citizenship’ or some other super-ordinate goal.

The second thing we must have is reconciliation. One might ask, who is to be reconciled and with whom? Well, there is plenty of reconciliation that must take place before we unite for a purpose. To be sure, reconciliation is not just about receiving or just about corrective action. It is about the future. It is a means of addressing how we are going to live together; it is a means of taking constructive action; it is a means of sorting through choices; and it is a means through which we take responsibility for past mistakes, and pledge to never ever repeat the offense again.

As such, we should have true and genuine reconciliation between political parties. This requires that the transgressions, real or imagined, of the past must be buried for good, and new efforts must be made to start anew. And I am happy to report that there are groups gearing up and ready to assist with this.

We need reconciliation between the governed and the governing. This is so because the ruling party has so much to explain.

Reconciliation between the government and the opposition parties is also critical if the country is to deploy all available talent to overcome the multitude of challenges.

Reconciliation between Ethiopians and their history is another must. Though this requires time as well as patience, there is a general feeling that many in Ethiopia and some outside of it are revising the country’s history to fit current needs. It may be possible to embellish history, but unnatural to edit it without molesting the truth. As a consequence, our historians have their work cut out for them in this regard.

We also need reconciliation on the issue of ‘ethnic federalism’. There are essentially two recognized methods of dealing with this important issue.

The first method is for the government not to acknowledge ethnic, national or social identities but rather instead enforce political and legal equality of all individuals. (See Jurgen Habermas & Bruce Barry).

It appears to me that this might be unworkable at the moment. For one thing, the current generation and the one just before it primarily see themselves as belonging to an ethnic group first, and the prominence of ‘citizenship’ is not as strong as we might wish to see it. I have to concede here that while I can only judge my contemporaries, I can only make educated guesses about those before or after me.

Second, ethnic groups in general, and ethnic cultures in Ethiopia in particular, have moved up and down the ethnic ‘diacritic’ overtime. And which ‘diacritic’ of ethnicity is salient depends on whether people are scaling ethnic boundaries up or down, and whether they are scaling them up or down depends generally on the political situation. (See Ronald Cohen & Joan Vincent). Furthermore, ethnicity emerges when it is relevant as a means of furthering emergent collective interests and changes according to political changes in the society. (See Barth & Seidner for more on this). Unless the political system changes, people will cling to what appears to them to be safe, comfortable, or even expected.

The second method is for the government to recognize ethnic identities and develop a process through which the particular needs of ethnic groups can be accommodated within the boundaries and/or sovereignty of the country. ( See Charles Taylor & Will Kymlicka). The Ethiopian government attempted to do the later but with provisions that have had disastrous consequences. These two points of view must be reconciled, and, I believe it is possible to do so.

The third thing that must be done is to provide a unified response to the three questions of: Land Ownership; Religion; and Ethnic Federalism.

Before the TPLF ascended to power and thereafter, it identified these three factors as wounds of the Ethiopian polity, and decided to turn them into weapons. Initially, the three issues resonated with the general population that had already been emotionally decimated by the Derg. While there will be disagreements on the efficacy, policy wise, of the particular factor, it is safe to say that the ruling party has used these three factors as a wedge issue between and among the populous. It is also safe to state that the initial euphoria generated among the population may have started to ebb as the public began to weigh and assess the benefits and costs associated with the particular issue. I am going out on a limb and suggest that the Ethiopian people have not embraced the ‘ethnic’ issue in a way that could make the ruling party claim success. In fact the opposite might just be true as Ethiopians began to view the ‘ethnicity’ issues as very divisive and threatening national unity and security. Indeed, an honest and correct assessment of the issue, notwithstanding what the high priests of ‘ethnic federation’ might think, would lead us to conclude that the ‘ethnic cleansing’ that took place in parts of the country had repulsed Ethiopians and offended their senses.

In all cases, however, there have not yet been clearly articulated positions or alternatives provided by either opposition political parties or academe to the vexing issues of land ownership (as you know, ownership is the prerogative to control); the role of religion, if any; and viable alternatives to ethnic federalism acceptable to all.

The fourth thing that must be done is an identification of a new form of ambition. Simply stated, we need to formulate a new agenda, if you will. The ruling party had promised Ethiopians the freedom from hunger. That concept has sold well overseas where outsiders, having tired of watching little hungry kids on their television sets, had given the government the benefit of doubt. Now that we know the result of that promise, I will refrain from restating it here again. But I think that Ethiopians—both inside and outside of the country—wish to articulate a new form of freedom: the freedom not to have to consider ethnicity in their daily lives. Simply stated, we need to have a new ambition. Because all ambitions require forward thrust, perhaps, this will provide the forward momentum that we desperately lacked.

Finally, we must establish a post-conflict organization to instigate economic, political, social, technological as well as scientific reform, and to make sure that the gains achieved are maintained and advanced; to advance a genuine inclusion agenda that incorporates actors from all stakeholders, and assure that there is no backsliding; and to sustain a conflict containment agenda that is proactive to make sure that the economic costs of violence are contained and managed.

How Would We Accomplish These?

In two recent articles, I have argued that we must have conversation. The conversation we are going to have should be about the solutions to the problems the country faces, and would include conversations about politics, power, authoritarianism and hegemony. If we agree that it is time for solutions, we must also agree that such solutions must be based on a transparent and realistic account of what caused the problems in the first place. Here, I don’t mean to overburden our conversations with a chronology of what took place and when because that won’t help explain it. What we need to do is examine the motivation for the actions taken, and on what basis those actions were taken. In trying to do so, all sides must understand that while the regime in Ethiopia faces considerable opposition, it also enjoys internal support. Most importantly, the government also has powerful allies, notably the U.S and the U.K. just to mention two.

Having framed the issue in this manner, a message has to be framed and delivered, and that message has to be effective. For a message to be effective, first, it must come from a unified group—a united opposition (just remember that no one in their right mind would wish to bargain with an intangible entity that can not deliver); and second, it must reach and influence those in control—whether they are elected officials, dictators, regulators, or private actors. That means, therefore, the communication would ultimately have to be with the ruling party. This is crucial. Take for instance women’s issues: to bring about change regarding women’s issues, it is not enough to talk to women alone. The conversation has to include men as well. Similarly, if we wish to bring about change in power and hegemony, the conversation would have to be with those that wield it. Peaceful change will only take place in Ethiopia with the positive involvement of the ruling party.

So what will we be the modality of the conversation with the ruling party? The Constitution, of course. I have written before that if there is ever anything we ought to talk about, it is the constitution. Why the constitution? Because, like it or not, accept it or not, the current government of Ethiopia is a ‘lawful’ regime and not an ‘unlawful’ one. It may be unlawful in many of its governing practices, but is recognized as a lawful regime by every country in the world. Hence, the focus on the constitution. It should be the center of our effort, the focus of our energies, and the roadmap to any peaceful change that is likely to bring about solutions to the problems Ethiopia faces to day. I have never advocated throwing away the current constitution in its entirety. I hold the opinion that the current constitution is one of the most liberally worded constitutions out there—it even allows for ethnic groups to cede from the motherland! How more liberal can you get? But like everything else, the devil is in the details. While there are elements of the document that might be useful to retain, there are also elements of the document that could produce disastrous consequences, and are damaging to the country.

Although not directly echoing my call for a constitutional reform, even the Chair of the Constitutional Assembly, Negaso Gidada, has given recent testimony that the drafting, approval and implementation of the constitution was fraught with many errors and problems, and expressed regret at the end product. Of the stunning admissions is his regret that the people of Ethiopia had no say in the final document. (See Teshome Abebe; & Negaso Gidada Interview).

Concluding Remarks

Let me summarize these comments as follows: Our country is distressed, and it needs our attention. Each person has an opportunity to contribute their talents and unleash some of their potential (ሀብት ያለው በሀብቱ፣ ጉልበት ያለው በጉልበቱ፣ እወቅት ያለው በእውቀቱ).

The ruling party borrowed strength from the position it held; and from the emotions created by using ethnicity, the issue of land ownership and religion as weapons. We now know the consequences of this ploy. But like all borrowed assets, borrowed strength eventually diminishes as one loses influence with those that they wish to impress, and the strength turns into weakness. It is at this juncture that we must ask, “what does the situation demand? What strength, what skill, what knowledge, and what attitude?”

To me, the situation demands that there must be unity: unity in goals, unity in purpose, unity in effort, and unity in principles.

The situation demands the strength of empathy: empathy to seek to understand, and then to be understood.

The situation demands the skills to build relationships and build them with consistency and sincerity, based on national imperatives and not personal agendas.

The situation further demands the knowledge to be able to teach, to explain, to organize and to execute.

And finally, the situation demands an attitude of reconciliation, inclusiveness, democratic values, and of a new ambition to a new kind of freedom for Ethiopians: the freedom not to have to consider ethnicity in their daily lives! Thank you

The solutions for Ethiopians are Ethiopians, Unified or die together

The TPLF government (following the footsteps of its late prime minster) want us to believe that the Meles Zenawi was a progressive and intelligent person that created a new Ethiopia. The most shameless claim Zenawi is the father of Ethiopian democracy.

I totally disagree with these assertions. Firstly, while Zenawi was not an ignorant, he’s ability to maintain control was not because of his intelligence, but merely because he was very good at wagging his tail around western leadership.

Zenwai was willing to do anything to get their approval and in particular brought nothing to the table, he was simply acted based of his millions of dollars’ worth of advisers from western countries, doing as they told him. Those advisers had no understanding of Ethiopian culture, traditions and mind set, similar to previous communist regime that forced communist theory on the shoulder of Ethiopians, which ultimately Ethiopians refused to swallow.

Furthermore, he paid millions dollars for lobbyists to advance his interests, and all other well western educated Ethiopian’s intellectuals are not trust worthy for him. Ethiopians have no confidence in his ability to execute anything that the Ethiopian people support.

If you go to any developing or developed Asian countries, most of their development policies embrace their cultural heritage, and many utilize their unique cultures in various industries as a driver of the economic growth in order to sustain long term development. But in Ethiopia, the TPLF is destroying the Ethiopian culture and instead helping the Arab, Indians, Turks and Chinese millionaires cultivate Ethiopian land for their own profits. They have marginalized and forced out native people from their lands, which they have lived for generations, and at their expenses, foreign millionaires are making millions dollars. As far as I am concerned that is not development, this is simply selling out. And Meles Zenwai is a sellout.

And see the Oakland institute web click here

The Ethiopian government is waging war against all Ethiopians, and in the last few years, has killed many Oromos for demanding for their basic democratic rights. In Gamebellas, Southern Ethiopia and Ogeden, Amahras have also been killed for demanding rights. In response to their deaths has been incomprehensible silence by the western media, who have not even asked a single question about these killings.

Recently All western medias talk about in regards to Ethiopia is its starvation, yet they never criticize the source of this problem, the Ethiopian government itself.

Amazing Journalist like Stephen John Sackur of BBC in his last stand off with the late Ethiopian dictator Meles Zenawai confronted him, that never happen again. I could not even find the interview online again.

The EPRDF control every piece of land in Ethiopia, which they treat as their personal properties, and yet still they want to show off their muscle and have kicked out some of the non-Tigranyas from their lands in particular in northern Ethiopia, and they kicked out Amharas, and they are force them to be Tigrays. This is unheard of in the 21st century and yet the western governments are watching allowing uncivilized idiots to continue to push down the Ethiopian people.

And I am not sure why the western governments are waiting for. When will they tell the Ethiopian government enough is enough? I hope they are not waiting till Ethiopia to be like Syria?

Government has the duty and responsibility to put an end to hate propaganda and violence

By Fesseha Akalu

What started as citizens’ opposition to a city expansion plan is clearly degenerating into something else. And this is because the usual suspects who see an opportunity in every public discontent to promote their own political and religious agenda are doing their utmost to hijack a genuine and legitimate public concern into a cause célèbre for violent revolution. This is not new, and shouldn’t of course come as a surprise as the country has been on that road before. Yet, what’s unusual and baffling is the fact that the government is showing extreme restraint (in politically correct term) or looking the other way when political adversaries are openly encouraging hysteria, feeding paranoia and promoting violence. Ethiopians are used to these types of propaganda coming from anti-peace forces overseas. What makes the new phenomenon alarming, however, is the fact that it’s happening from within the country, thus raising the “Where is the government?” question. On that note, to my knowledge, the one of the main emerging agents of hate propaganda and promoters of violence is a “journalist” by the name Anania Sorri who, among other things, is on record for:

a. Defaming public figures, and making death threats against them. He so far has named Ato
Abay Tsehaye, Ato Getachew Reda and Wro. Mimi Sebhatu as targets.
b. Inciting political unrest, lawlessness in the country by advising citizens to arm themselves up
or an inevitable showdown with the government.
c. Trying to create ethnic conflict with such inflammatory statements that one ethnic based regional political party has declared a “Holocaust/Genocide” against another.
d. Declaring war on one particular ethnic group.
e. Calling on the army to turn its guns on the government, etc.

So, when the issue is this serious and there happens to be damning evidence to bring people like
Anania Sorri to justice, why are government officials and security forces not taking action? Only they can answer that, but one can make an informed speculation.

1. Government officials and those in charge of the country’s security may look down on the likes of
Anania Sorri as immature political lightweights, and thereby underestimate their impact. However, this would be wrong not only because death threats and inciting hate/political unrest are serious offences, but also because there are innocent young minds that could easily be influenced by the propaganda, and ultimately rise to action at the expense of endangering their own lives as well as that of the public.
2. After attracting negative publicity on the national and international stage following the arrest of political activists, journalists and bloggers, the government could be shying away from making new arrests. If so, this would be wrong too. After all, it is one thing to show restraint when it comes to minor offences, but quite another when law and order, ethnic relations as well as citizens’ and public safety are openly threatened and clearly put in danger.
3. There could be a desire or an attempt to appease the opposition in the hope of bridging gaps and resolving conflict amicably. While this, in principle, is the right thing to do, history shows that hatred and violence can never be appeased. Rather, they need to be dealt with as quickly and fiercely as possible before they spread like wildfire paving the way for lawlessness and anarchy.

To sum up, as government has the duty and responsibility to protect its citizens by keeping law and order, a quick action needs to be taken against those who are making death threats, spreading hatred, promoting violence against people and preaching ethnic Armageddo

ETHIOPIA: A PLACE WHERE NAMES SHOULDN’T COUNT FOR MUCH

By Teshome Abebe*


I begin this essay by paying tribute to the men who perished in the hands of the cowardly, ignorant, despicable, and abhorrent criminals who murder men and women and enslave children for political gain in search of power. Though their aim was, in part, to provoke inter and intra-religious antagonism and conflict in Ethiopia, they must have discovered, to their surprise, that in matters of peace and war, Ethiopians do not have a history of begging for mercy. In the spirit of the age-old Ethiopian tradition, the young men who perished never begged for mercy knowing fully that those who plead for it never get it.

Emperors Libene Dingel and Gelawdewos never begged for mercy when Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi, (‘Ahmed Gragne’) and his cousin Nur Ibn Miyahid, took turns horrifying the land; Tewodros never begged for mercy in the face of a superior invading foreign force; Yohannes never begged for mercy—instead he presented his neck; Abuna Petros never begged the Fascists of Italy for mercy—he died willingly. The countless ‘arbegnotch’ and scholars whose heads were chopped off by the Italians never begged for mercy—they knew they would be remembered as heroes by the future sons and daughters of Ethiopia.

A man alone is an easy prey even for a hyena, and the men who perished didn’t die rich. But they died stubbornly, committed to their individual faith, and whether we agree with their faiths or not, we admire their resolve and acceptance of their fate. We only wish that the Ethiopian government will do everything in its power to determine who was behind the dastardly criminal act so that we will be able to figure out and understand the real force or forces that perceived a license to spill the blood of its citizens.

Now, to my intended essay. In this essay, I wish to argue that acknowledging one’s errors is never a sign of weakness. Instead, it can be a sign of confidence and the acquisition of new knowledge—i.e. learning. I believe it must have been one of the former presidents of the United States who once said that there could be no effort without error or shortcomings! This is true for every undertaking, and it certainly is true of politics in general. Furthermore, we can safely state that there can be no single authority in a multidimensional world. And there can be no single arbitrating authority in a world with a multitude of issues and multiple identities. Whenever there is some sort of authority, it is usually authority based upon the largest audience or followership. Even a dictator’s authority is divisible in that he or she has to at least have the concurrence or acquiescence of some.

Over the past several years, there have been numerous individuals who have argued as well as counseled that the Ethiopian economy needed to be diversified, and that the private sector needed to be opened up to those with investment potential and capabilities regardless of their domicile. Without ignoring completely the government’s arguments that the infant industry at home needed some protection as well as the compelling argument that there are activities where the private sector would not willingly make investments, like road building, bridges, and other essential infrastructure of the ‘public good’ nature, some adjustment of current policy is essential. It is in this sense that I welcome the news that the government is planning to make changes or a course correction in at least some sectors. For example, it is now common knowledge that the government is going to open up the housing sector for foreign investments, and to make 2.3 million hectares of land available for investors. In addition, even the most strident supporters of the government are raising serious questions about the government’s inability to remain impartial in the market place, and for its perceived inability to curb rent-seeking activities including in the more high-profile cases in the country. This should be viewed as a welcome development, and here are some of the reasons why.

The first of these is the government’s optimistic and erroneous assumption earlier on that the local entrepreneurs have the expertise and capital, and thereby the ability, to satisfy demand. To the surprise of the government, it has now discovered that there is no talent that outsiders possess—including the Diaspora-- which the country cannot now use. In addition, and the second reason, it appears that the government has learned that sometimes it lacks knowledge rather than skills; at other times it lacks skills rather than knowledge to solve problems.

The practical consequence of this condition is that the resolutions for the many problems the government has faced have either been arbitrary or politically inspired and/or dogmatic. This in turn has denied it the ability as well as the flexibility to find irrefutable solutions to current problems. Therefore, overtime, the problems have become dilemmas to which practical solutions have not been considered or available. I am not suggesting that the problems are easy or simple to manage. What I am suggesting is that because the problems are so intractable, ideology and politics should never be allowed to exclude consideration and adoption of potential solutions.

In that sense, let me address the new elephant in the room, as an example. Regardless of what the government and its supporters have to say, in my opinion, the feature of a huge country like Ethiopia with multiple identities, and where people are divided along instrumentalized killil lines based on instrumentalized ethnicity and to the possible detrimental effects on the free and unencumbered movement of skilled labor, capital and entrepreneurial expertise, will always have an instrumentalized shortage of one thing or another.

Add to this the other old elephant in the room—the lack of meaningful, determined initiatives at population control where the norm today is for inflated families that cannot be fed adequately, the impact of geography on absolute poverty will be further accentuated rather than being minimized. If this persists, the current condition of ‘leading’ and ‘lagging’ regions or killils will be the norm—a situation that is contrary to the notion of equal development.

I am in agreement with the government’s conclusions that political stability along with macroeconomic stability is key to economic development. Yet, the concept of instrumentalized killils is contrary to the forces of globalization, which are irreversible. Instead of forging a new enlightened path to more integration where regions are subject to a common freedom of resource exploitation without exercising national sovereignty, the government had in effect decreed that certain things are not object of private rights, and others are insusceptible to being influenced by the natural forces of outside influences. In this sense, the practical effect of the killils is that Oromia, for example, has to rely on its own labor force for economic development, as do Amhara, Tigrai or any of the other killils. The observable result is, for example, not much else is being developed outside of Adama and Addis Ababa in Oromia where the federal government has not taken interest. Stretches of communities from Messela, Tullo, Burka, Deder, Kobo, Kersa, Bedeno, Gara Muleta, and many, many other communities are in some ways worse of today than they were decades ago.

By similar illustration, one can find examples of communities in the other killils through out the country where the regional governments have simply not been able to develop on their own. The inherently unsustainable doctrine of self-sufficiency originating with the creation of the instrumentalized killil system is partly to blame. Just as a country that can draw on the world’s population for its development is far better off than the one that is closed (think of the USA here), a region (killil) is better off when it can rely on the labor force, resources and skills of other regions (killils).

It is admirable that the government talks about national collective unity, and indeed, has made this one of its pillars of economic development and progress but in a perverse way. I assert here that the government can achieve national collective unity by other means as well. A good place to start would be to begin giving people good choices that are meaningful. Economic development, in part, is about giving people good choices.

A third reason for the perceived change of course, I believe, is the government’s realization that it can not continue to be the single largest employer of the labor force in the country. The generation of jobs and creative employment for the multitude of the young unemployed and underemployed requires the cooperation and contributions of the private sector. That the government seems to have recognized this should be of no surprise to anyone as it has created many higher education institutions each graduating many of the young people who in turn expect value for their education. The alternative would be an unwelcome disillusionment followed by cynicism and, in the worst case, chaos.

It is a forgone conclusion that the government will still be in power after the scheduled political ‘contest’ this month. By the end of its next term, the TPLF/FDRE government will have been in power for nearly thirty years—a rule that is one of the longest in the country’s history. This experience should have given it wisdom and knowledge along with confidence to trust and embrace not only just some Ethiopians but also all Ethiopians, and to allow for the correction of some of its missteps and errors. Others would write and speak about the political and social missteps, and could do so in more informed ways than I could. With regard to the economy, however, it is always worth remembering that a healthy respect for market-led resource allocation is essential for economic development. This is so because all economies are guided by macroeconomic goals, but function according to microeconomic rules and principles. To illustrate this point or cite an example, the government has done quite a bit to help farmers export food because of prevailing high prices overseas. The consequence of this is that not all of the poor are worse off: farmers (who happened to be poor for the most part) benefit, but the urban poor suffer. Helping farmers become more productive and sell overseas is good for their income, but does very little for food prices at home. The government collects whatever taxes it levies on exports, never mind the foreign exchange generated, but the poor still pay the higher domestic prices.

Few objective observers could seriously argue that the intractable problems Ethiopia faces today, including absolute poverty, underdevelopment, fleeing citizens and a degree of polarization, are due to lack of theories, facts or knowledge and skills or even thoughtlessness. Instead, it is partly due to the values and beliefs as well as the policies and stories the government allows to be played out. It is these beliefs, policies and stories that are going to serve us as our trust worthy landmarks come the next ‘election’. Once again, every generation holds the promise of a fresh start, and that begins with what we think. And what we think is that names shouldn’t count for much, and that a course correction is both desirable and necessary. It can even be a sign of confidence and maturity!

*Professor Teshome Abebe is a former Provost and Vice President, and may be reached at: teshome2008@gmail.com

LIFT UP YOUR HEADS ETHIOPIANS: YOU ARE THE GREATEST PEOPLE THAT EVER WALKED THE FACE OF THIS EARTH

By Tecola W Hagos

Introduction

The brutal murder of thirty Ethiopians in Libya and the savage attack and burning of Ethiopian Brothers in barbaric “Zululand” in South Africa in the last two weeks reminded me once again that we live among savages and subhuman creatures around the World. I cannot find appropriate words to use in identifying the savages that committed such heinous crimes against absolutely innocent and defenseless peaceful Ethiopians in Libya or in South Africa. These groups of individuals along with their leaders showed behavior no better than primitive wild animals. I cannot consider them as part of the human race of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in light of their criminal deeds. In either case they are a cowardly group of individuals that slaughtered innocent people, and their so called governments did nothing more than lip service to protect peaceful law abiding Ethiopians and other Africans from several countries. The South African Government has violated the Genocide Convention that is jus cogens may be even obligatio erga Omnes.

On Tuesday 28 April 2015, the South African Government has deployed military personnel to round up undocumented immigrants in areas where most of the crimes of murdering and looting of immigrants had taken place. The Government of South Africa is now getting ready to violate the human rights of African immigrants and is setting another purging to satisfy the demented desire of primitive criminals that do not even know who is stripping them of the wealth they aspire for. No matter how immigrants entered South Africa legally or illegally, they have their unalienable human rights and must not be abused, tortured, or murdered by anyone in South Africa. The South African Government and/or its Citizens are not above the Charter of the United Nations and numerous Conventions and Resolutions of the United Nations. The South African Government has signed and ratified such international instruments. It has the utmost duty and international obligation to protect every human being however his/her status might be within its territory from assaults, abuses, torture, and murders.

South Africa is a Member Party to the Genocide Convention by its act of accession of 1998. Ethiopia, of course, is the original signatory of 1948 and ratifying the Convention in 1949, thanks to the legacy of Emperor Haile Selassie I. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948. It has now a membership of 146 Sovereign States. Many jurists and legal scholars believe the Genocide Convention has become part of the customary international law and norms and it needs not be limited in its reach only to the Membership of the Convention. A considerable number of legal experts including the ICJ in a noted case hold the Convention as jusc cogens may be also obligato erga omnes. [See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43. The existence of a jus cogens in genocide cases is also affirmed by the June 2013 decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. The Netherlands case. In that case the dispositive issue was on the question of immunity of United Nations authorized peace keeping forces in cases of allegations of genocide for failing to prevent the massacre of Muslims in Srebrenica. In a dictum the court has asserted that the Genocide Convention is indeed a jus cogens principle in international law and norms.]

I have hereunder extracted relevant provisions from the Genocide Convention of 1948 and also relevant provisions on the human rights and human dignity of all persons in South Africa from the Constitution of South Africa as Amended. Take not the fact that King Goodwill Zwelithini is a criminal violator of both the Genocide Convention (Articles 2 and 3) and the Constitution of South Africa (Chapter 2: Bill of Rights in its entirety), so are several political leaders and individuals in the South African Government.

The Genocide Convention

Article 1
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3

The following acts shall be punishable:
• (a) Genocide;
• (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
• (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
• (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
• (e) Complicity in genocide.

Article 4

Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article 5

The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.

Article 6

Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Article 7

Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

Article 8

Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.

Article 9

Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

The South African Constitution

Now consider the Constitution of South Africa as Amended in its aspect directly dealing with human rights issues and the responsibilities of the South African Government to protect the lives and well-being of people living in South Africa irrespective of their legal status as legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, or Citizens:
.
Preamble: We, the people of South Africa, Recognise the injustices of our past; Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land; Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity. We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to - Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights; Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law; Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and Build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations. May God protect our people.
…
Chapter 2: Bill of Rights

7. Rights
(1) This Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom.

(2) The state must respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights.

(3) The rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to the limitations contained or referred to in section 36, or elsewhere in the Bill.

8. Application

(1) The Bill of Rights applies to all law, and binds the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state.

(2) A provision of the Bill of Rights binds a natural or a juristic person if, and to the extent that, it is applicable, taking into account the nature of the right and the nature of any duty imposed by the right.

(3) When applying a provision of the Bill of Rights to a natural or juristic person in terms of subsection (2), a court -

(a) in order to give effect to a right in the Bill, must apply, or if necessary develop, the common law to the extent that legislation does not give effect to that right; and

(b) may develop rules of the common law to limit the right, provided that the limitation is in accordance with section 36 (1).

(4) A juristic person is entitled to the rights in the Bill of Rights to the extent required by the nature of the rights and the nature of that juristic person.

9. Equality

(1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

(2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.

(3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

(4) No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.

(5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.

10. Human dignity

Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected.

11. Life
Everyone has the right to life.

12. Freedom and security of the person

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right -

(a) not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause;

(b) not to be detained without trial;

(c) to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources;

(d) not to be tortured in any way; and

(e) not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.

(2) Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right -

(a) to make decisions concerning reproduction;

(b) to security in and control over their body; and

(c) not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.

The Zulu Factor: Afrophobia not Xenophobia

In a series of articles Zackie Achmat and several other prominent scholars have exposed the disruptive activities and collaboration of Zulu leaders with the White rulers of South Africa throughout the struggle against the Apartheid system of Government. “The late colonial and apartheid state in South Africa was always White dominated but supported ‘tribal’ leaders in the homelands or Bantustans and a minority of Coloured and Indian collaborators.” Achmat further named Gatsha Buthelezi, Kaizer Matanzima, Lennox Sebe, Cedric Mphephu, Alan Hendrickse, Armichand Rajbansi, Lucas Mangope and many others who collaborated with the apartheid state. Everyone of these chiefs were based in the old homelands: Lebowa (North Sotho, also referred to as Pedi), QwaQwa (South Sotho), Bophuthatswana (Tswana), KwaZulu (Zulu), KaNgwane (Swazi), Transkei and Ciskei (Xhosa), Gazankulu (Tsonga), Venda (Venda) and KwaNdebele (Ndebele). [See Zachie Achmat, “Was apartheid only white rule: Bantustans, collabor ators and traditional leaders,” July 24, 2010]

The brutal and savage attack of immigrants (from Ethiopia, Mozambique, Malawi, Somalia and other Southern Africa countries) was not Xenophopic but Afrophopic aimed at Black African immigrants. The main culprit of that heinous crimes are some subhuman Zulus upfront doing the gruesome deeds in the main, but the real criminals instigating the primitive Zulu thugs are the “Coloured” and Indian small business owners who are behind the scene. Those are the same groups who have a long history of collaboration with Boers, Afrikaners and the White rulers and in case of the Zulus had even attacked and murdered freedom fighters of the ANC. Achmat opined further, “Now is the time to re-examine the role of ‘traditional’ leaders and collaborators under apartheid. They did not go away, they entered the ANC to continue plundering the state as they plundered the Bantustans and the stooge Coloured and Indian Parliaments.”

The individual responsible for the latest atrocities, where two Ethiopian brothers were burned to death (among several other Black Africans who were murdered and tortured and their property was looted and their homes and businesses vandalized), is the Zulu leader, King Goodwill Zwelithini, who referred to immigrants as “lice” and “ticks” that must be removed. He said, “Let us pop our head lice. We must remove ticks and place them outside in the sun. We ask foreign nationals to pack their belongings and be sent back,” in a speech in Pongola in northern Kwa-Zulu Natal, on 20 March 2015. [See Reuters, 20 March 2015]. It is a fact that his father and Grand Father were all collaborators of the White rulers long before the Apartheid system was enforced in 1948. Zwelithini’s ancestoral family member were also responsible in the assassination of Shaka Zulu, the very founder of Zululand. However, after Zwelithini was installed king in 1968, he did support briefly revolt against the White rulers but later ended up against the international sanction against South Africa and become supporter of Inkatha and Buthelezi the famous anti-ANC politician, the black public face that wanted to continue the Apartheid system.

King Goodwill Zwelithini and His International Crime

People in power and those who have sway on groups of people must be careful with their words. I suggest all victims of atrocities and the Ethiopian Government and other governments of the victims’ home-countries should sue King Goodwill Zwelithini in courts in the United States and in courts of countries signatories who have ratified or acceded to the Genocide Convention for crime of genocide and crime against humanity. This criminal court proceeding can be also pursued in the International Criminal Court (ICC). South Africa ratified the Rome Treaty of the ICC in 2000, Ethiopia has not done that to this day. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore a rabid dog going around biting people of any status from any part of the World.

Civil suits should be brought against Zwelithini wherever his assets are to be found and it is very likely to recover in damages in millions of dollars for the murdered victims and those tortured by thugs and looters in the weeks after 13 April 2015 to date. Zwelithini’s later retraction after the fact is simply a face saving device, and also to portray himself free of criminal intent. Even then he had done a shoddy job, for he simply got himself sink deeper in his own filth of hate and bigotry calling for violence against groups he identified as “illegal” foreigners.

The South African Government seems to be reluctant in investigating and arresting the criminals that murdered innocent Ethiopians and other immigrants. The South African Government and the individual officials too can be sued in foreign courts. The Police in South Africa are a joke, they were/are more of collaborators than law enforcers deliberately not protecting defenseless victims. It is absolutely shameful to watch those subhuman creatures attacking and looting in total disregard of the minimum of standards of civilized behavior.

The Greatness of Ethiopians

My identification of Ethiopians as the “greatest” people that ever walked the face of the Earth is not simply a matter of hyperbole and empty rhetoric. In the aftermath of that horrendous crime committed against Ethiopians by IS in the name of Islam in Libya, there was not a single report of any retaliatory violence against Muslims in Ethiopia or by Diaspora Ethiopians in the rest of the World. In a country that one finds brutal and savage Government, how can we explain such civilized behavior by ordinary Ethiopians? To answer this question one must traverse long distances to far ancient times.

It is a fact that We gave birth to all of human civilizations by planting the seed of basic values and organized society when a handful of Us ventured out into the four corners of the World. Who do you think the Sumerians were, who are accredited for planting the seed of civilization for all of mankind? They are the people of highland Ethiopia from the Great Rift Valley mountain escarpments who trekked on foot across the Afar depression crossing over the land-bridge between Africa and Asia through Southern Arabian Peninsula and settled in the swampy delta of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. They took with them their greatest discovery of all time the cultivation of wild highland grass cereal Barley, Oats, and Wheat seeds and domesticated cattle, sheep and goats, donkeys and the forerunners of horses into the well watered plains of Uruk, Lagash et cetera.

We Ethiopians are builders of civilizations and we spread our DNA of highly evolved Homo- sapiens and replenished the Earth. It is only in Ethiopia that you find the prototypes of every race of the World. We are not sedentary and fearful people. We are adventurous and of a highly dynamic stock. We are not afraid of the unknown, for we are superbly confident of our survival skill. When man ventures out into deep space and encounters the first intelligent life form, he/she will be surprised to find out that he/she was beaten to that frontier by no other than an Ethiopian. We are already spread all over the World planting the seeds of the new humanity to come through in a couple of thousand years. The World is ours, and we do not have to apologize for spreading all over the World. Wherever we go we bring to the area great spirituality, morality and organized life. Anywhere in the World if you find a few Ethiopians, you also find that they have a religious center usually a Church, a community center, a soccer team, a restaurant, a local store et cetera.

This phenomena of instant organization, constructive engagement, and the establishment of civil structure is our singular heritage from ancient times. Throughout our tumultuous history, we fought foreign invaders with one hand and built great churches, cathedrals, cities and palaces with the other hand. The great Cathedrals and Churches hewn from solid rocks were constructed at Roha (Lalibela) during a period of recovery and reconstruction of the Ethiopian Empire after a devastating dynastic upheaval that lasted over a century at the end of the first Millennium.

It is not some fairytale when a number of historians even non-Ethiopians at times grudgingly acknowledge that We are the people who had never been subjugated by any outside force in legend and throughout recorded human history. All of our history is that of a people who only know freedom without foreign yoke or masters. With each other we could be harsh even barbaric, but all that are infightings within a family.

Ethiopians, Lift Up Your Heads in Pride!

I have read several narratives and commentaries written by learned scholars and professionals such as Aklog Birara (PhD) [“ከጩኸት ወደ ተግባር። የሚነገድበት የስደት ማእበል ትውልድ ከየት መጣ? ለማቆም እንረባረብ።”], Alemayehu G Mariam (Prof) [“Ethiopia: cry once again, our beloved country”], et cetera. Whereby, those learned scholars focused on the problems leading to the migration of Ethiopians from the Motherland unprotected nor supported when in trouble by the current Ethiopian Government. They wrongly pilled all the problems of Ethiopians on the TPLF/EPRDF. Moreover, along with some of the video presentations of demonstrations and Memorials for those Ethiopians victims of IS in Libya and victims of street thugs in South Africa seem to present us being humiliated by being victimized or for being immigrants. I strongly object to such portrayal of us to be ashamed of being migrant workers, or victims of violence. There is nothing to be ashamed of being migrant workers if we seek our fortune and comfort anywhere in the World. If we migrate from Ethiopia into the rest of the World for any reason, that is nothing to be ashamed of. Who can say that part of the World that we choose to go to is not for us? If some subhuman creature attacks or torture us there is nothing to be ashamed of. But we must fight back.

The real issue is not why a number of young Ethiopians leave Ethiopia, but is our Government protecting us no matter why we leave Ethiopia? Or is the Ethiopian Government equally guilty for our suffering in the hands of subhuman creatures? If we put the question that way, the Ethiopian Government is even more guilty of the suffering of immigrant Ethiopians in Libya, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. For the Ethiopian Government has the Constitutional duty to protect the citizens of Ethiopia wherever they maybe. When the Saudis over a year ago were murdering and brutalizing Ethiopians, the Ethiopian Government should have declared war and gone to war too. Because the Ethiopia Government failed to stand against the Saudi Government and others when Ethiopian Citizens are abused and murdered by such governments and their citizens, the rest of the World took notice that it is OK to abuse and murder Ethiopians to the point that now some South Africans whom we helped in time of their distress suffering under the yoke of Apartheid by training fighters of the ANC including Mandela are murdering and torturing Ethiopians.

If a dog bites you, there is no reason to be ashamed of. If a donkey kicks you, there is nothing to be ashamed of that. By the same token if the IS or Arabs or Zulu thugs attack Ethiopians, shame on them not on Us. There is nothing shameful in migrating, traveling in different parts of the world. Under a different time frame, Ethiopians would not have traveled that far without their swords and spears. Time has defanged us, the Lions of Africa, and we have become victims of street thugs and hooded cowardly men who murder unarmed peaceful men. Ethiopian immigrants have committed no crimes that leads to being butchered. My fellow Ethiopians, now hold your heads high, and do not be victimized a second time by humiliating yourself believing you are pariah and have done something wrong. You have not done anything wrong. The World is ours to share.

Our pride in ourselves and our history is not empty but backed with historic triumphs of defeating well-armed Western Armies twice in 1896 and in 1941. No other African nation has done that. As to the Zulus of South Africa, no amount of pretention would erase their vainglorious past, for they were defeated by a handful of Boers and later by the British and subjugated for centuries confined to so called “homelands” and insignificant Kraals. They built nothing of permanence. They were just primitive herders or gatherers for most of their history even after their contact with Western civilization in the 16th Century. Even more shameful is their collaboration with the racist White rulers against ANC freedom fighters up to the last days of the Apartheid System in 1994.

The Ethiopian Government

The current Ethiopian Government has failed completely its own Constitutional duties and responsibilities to protect the human rights and human dignity of the Citizens of Ethiopia residing legally or illegally in several foreign countries, such as Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Lebanon, Turkey and South Africa, in addition to those passing-through territories of countries, such as Kenya, Somalia, Djibouti, Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia et cetera. The Ethiopian Leaders failed miserably from taking appropriate action against Saudi Arabia when Ethiopians were murdered, tortured, and brutally treated by the barbaric Saudi Government and its subhuman citizens. That acquiescence in the face of horrendous brutality and murder committed against Ethiopians, paved the way to other nations to brutalize Ethiopians because they realized the Ethiopian Government will not bother to take care of its citizens. In more ways than one that form of lack of concern for citizens is the hallmark of the leadership of the TPLF from its inception to date.

The Ethiopian Government did not even protest to the United Nations about the brutalizing and murder of its citizens by Saudis. Did it do any better with the current Libyan savagery at the United Nations? Have they protested the continued abuse and murder of Ethiopians in South Africa? What do Ethiopian Diplomats do around the United Nations and the European Union and the African Union or elsewhere in the World? Absolutely nothing. They are busy trading in illegal tax free liquor and tax free goods. Ethiopia’s diplomatic mission is a big joke. They serve no one not even the Government they represent let alone the People of Ethiopia. Let me just illustrate my point, I have not heard any report that someone in the Foreign Ministry nor in the Prime Minister’s office suggesting to call a regional Conference of the States whose citizens have been brutalized and murdered in South Africa. That would have been the first act of seasoned diplomats. Ethiopian Diplomats are just a joke wherever you find them and the worst inapt diplomats you find at the United Nations, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, South Africa, the United States et cetera.

I have written at considerable personal risk and threats suggesting that we should give some chance for the new Ethiopian leader Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn and his new Administration, and a time to breath and a chance to fix the monumental problems left behind by the late Prime Minster Meles Zenawi. To my chagrin, Hailemariam Desalegn does not seem to have the type of leadership backbone in order to break away from the straightjacket-politics left behind by Meles. To a depth, I can understand the dilemma faced by Hailemariam Desalegn in a pit of vipers what can he do either play dead, or bare false fangs as the vipers around him. He must have forgotten one important thing he can do: if he is a decent man that he can always resign than be boxed in by the likes of Samora, Abaye, Kassu, and the omnipresent Ghost of Meles Zenwi.

I have patiently shouldered the insults and verbal abuses of some of the vocal Diaspora, for my focus is always on what would happen on the morning after overthrowing the current Ethiopian Government. I cannot in good conscience gamble with the lives of millions of Ethiopians by jumping into a dark pit without knowing what awaits us all in the morning after. I have read all kinds of allegations that I am somehow in cahoots with the current Ethiopian Government and/or the TPLF/EPRDF. If truth be easily swallowed, the fact is that the people in leadership position now in Ethiopia hate and wish ill to no one as much as they do to me. The groups that conspired to get me out of the EPRDF/TPLF in 1992 are now in full control without the restraining power of Meles Zenaw. Meles Zenawi was a far more capable politician than those now left behind, who are surviving on his legacy. Meles knew well how to play pitting groups and balancing their influences. In fact, he did not want me to resign and leave the country in 1993.

There is no doubt in my mind that Meles has done some serious harm to the interest of Ethiopia: land locking it, devaluing its currency, selling out its territory to Sudan, forcing local population off their ancestral land and leasing their land to foreigners, degrading the humanity of Ethiopians by killing and incarcerating thousands of Ethiopians during the seventeen years of struggle and during the period of the last twenty years of power and national leadership. In the long run his fate as his legacy will be as dismal as that of Oliver Cromwell. I have articulated the main debacles that Meles left us with. If I were in a position of power, I would deactivate all those political land-mines he left behind. There is no love lost between us. The only item I consider positive in all of his activities is the construction of the GERD, but even that is with reservations, for there are several items about the GERD I would like to know more about. Moreover, it is really pointless to dwell on Meles Zenawi, let him rest wherever, for we have far more pressing needs to solve our complex problems than just lament our lost time and our lost opportunities.

Conclusion

This is a difficult time for us Ethiopians. This is how great people are tested. No one cares what happens in scores of countries around the World let alone hunt their citizens for particularly brutal murder and violence. Such barbaric acts are aimed to great Western nations too. In Ethiopia, we have a great country and people that become targets for cowardly thugs and terrorists. My personal thoughts about such savages and subhuman individuals is not flattering at all. The only terms I find appropriate to describe them and identify them with are Borealopithecus Arabsis for the northern hominid Arabs who brutalized and murdered Ethiopians in Libya (recently) and in Saudi Arabia for years, and Australopithecus Zulusis for the southern hominids Zulus for those who committed the barbaric murders and tortures recently and in 2008 in South Africa.

Although I am digressing from the theme of this essay, nevertheless, I want it to be clearly understood that I am forward looking, I use history and past events as a learning tool to hone up my future plans. Past events must not put us in a box and disable us from being creative and innovative in our dealing with our future. I read also, less now than before, some ignorant narrow minded individuals from some insignificant village from the back woods of Ethiopia trying to define my Ethiopiawnet. I care even for such individuals, for in the final analysis they are part of my Ethiopia the way I know it from its ancient birth to its present precarious existence held between destructive Arabs, South African Zulus, overambitious local politicians in Ethiopia, some Diaspora frustrated immigrants et cetera—a shining example of survival in the face of a deluge threatening our very existence. It is in this understanding of our Ethiopian reality that I am reluctant to dismiss or ignore the huge elephant in the room—the current Ethiopian Government dominated by TPLF.

How does it help if I write declaring the Current Ethiopian Government is dead? The Elephant will still be there the morning after, may be even in a more destructive mood. I do not want to have a power vacuum in Ethiopia. One cannot just use only force to get viable change of governance in Ethiopia. This has nothing to do with my liking or being loyal to the current Leaders in Ethiopia. We need them not because I like them, but because they serve a useful purpose despite the fact of their corruptions, whereby their wives, children, family members, business partners including foreigners, and generals amassing fortune and assets worth millions of dollars. The brutality and violations of human rights by the current Ethiopian Government is no secret. We have to build first some critical mass. Our bickering and amateurish politicking did not take us far to get rid of this deeply entrenched Federalism of ethnicity, if left unattended and reversed will prove to be our undoing. We need to work with existing sources of power. It is not even a question of “must” but of “need,” and you can easily observe the distinction I am making here.

Long live Ethiopia. Lift Up Your Heads Great Ethiopians. .

Tecola W. Hagos

Yilma Bekele and all Ethioipan shebea's agents stop kissing up with shebea

By Yilma Bekele

This issue of Eritrea has been with us for more than I can remember. In fact it is fair to say like most of you I have lived all my life being affected by the problem with our relatives to the North. Considering the life expectancy in our ancient land it would not be farfetched to conclude for the vast majority of our people the Eritrean question has been like an albatross hanging our neck stopping us from thinking in a straight and rational manner.

I am not a historian by training thus I would not attempt to explain what exactly happened a thousand years back not even as recent as a hundred year ago. Today I felt we should strive to be equipped with some knowledge however rudimentary so we could have a little appreciation of a problem that has vexed our people and country for quite a while. My attempt is not to go on some intellectual fishing expedition but rather to put the current issue in perspective for us ordinary people to come to grips with.

I beg my esteemed reader’s forgiveness if I have broached a subject which most of us seem to be expert in and have no qualms throwing opinions left and right no matter the merit. Mine might be considered as one but I felt I have to say it and let you be the judge. I will by no means consider it the last word on the subject. I normally try to present my case in two pages or less. I am afraid this time that task became impossible due to the very importance of the subject matter. I have done all I could to edit a very long article to what it is now. I again ask for your patience and implore you to read it all with care. I worked very hard at it.

Anyway I wanted to present another aspect of the issue due to the successive articles being presented by my good friend the editor of Ethiopian Review News and Information Web site impacting our current relationship with Eritrea. My intention is not to prove or disprove my colleague’s argument but rather to give a different perspective on the subject.

Going back to my point, I apologize it took long but one has to create a starting point to tell a story and that is what I was trying to do. I have chosen 1951- the aftermath of World War II as day one of my analysis (the Europeans are the ones that fought most but what the heck they include all of us as usual). The British defeated the Italians in 1942 and Eritrea was placed under their military administration until 1951. In 1952 the UN voted for Eritrea to be federated with Ethiopia. In 1962 Emperor Haile Selassie dissolved the Eritrean Parliament making it a province of Ethiopia.

The Eritreans did not appreciate being another province under Imperial rule thus organized under the ELF (Eritrean Liberation Front) and started their long struggle for self-determination. The ELF gave way to EPLF with the Isaias Afwerki as the new leader in the 1970’s and the Liberation movement entered a new phase. The fall of the Derg in 1991 was the culmination of almost forty years of war and destruction. Eritrea became an independent nation on May 24 1993.

There is no question that the referendum that was carried out in April of 1993 that led to the declaration of independence was a hastily arranged divorce that contained lots of ambiguities, left many questions an answered and ignored plenty of vital issues that have come to haunt both nations years after the resolution of the issue. This was definitely a perfect example of ‘haste makes waste’ syndrome. (ሲሮጡ የታጠቁት ሲሮጡ ይፈታል) Here we are twenty years later and it is clear that we Ethiopians have not been able to reconcile our objections and accept the new situation staring us in our face. The love hate relationship with our cousins is something that is eating us from the inside and a cause of many heated arguments including fist fights that clouds our thinking and creates a stressful situations between family, friends and acquaintances.

It is not unreasonable to expect twenty years to be enough time to come to terms with a situation that for all practical reason could not be reversed. The fact of the matter is that there is a country called Eritrea with an internationally recognized borders and a membership in all International institutions as an independent Nation State. That fact cannot be changed without the consent of the people Eritrea or some out of the world calamity that no one wishes nor likely to happen at all.

The problem most definitely lies with us Ethiopians that are refusing to let go, accept reality and move on. There are many reasons for our dilemma but having an excuse is not considered a valid point for our sometimes irrational and overboard behavior. The main cause of this unfortunate situation that is causing untold problems is the TPLF regime that holds absolute power in Ethiopia and is so adept at knowing where to poke our inner feeling to stoke fear and hate.

Although the EPLF was the primary organizer, cultivator, trainer and all around baby sitter of the TPLF (ሕዝባዊ ወያኔ ሓርነት ትግራይ) the love affair came to an end not long after the TPLF was able to get its feet firmly planted in Addis Abeba. True to their nature the Woyane’s showed no qualms betraying their close friend and sponsor. Like any dictatorial regimes that survives by creating division and dissent they found Eritrea a convenient target to use as an enemy that is poised to destabilize and dead set in trying to control Ethiopia. Like their predecessors the Imperial regime and the Derg it was not hard to for Woyane to fan the flames of war and destruction that is always poised to strike from the north.

Eritrea is a country with six million people limited resources and is one of the youngest nations in the process of rebuilding its economy after years of war. Ethiopia is a country with ninety million people with plenty of resources but due to the succession of autocratic and military regime has failed to use its God given potential to escape recurring famine and poverty. Thus it was the most absurd moment in history when the two nations went back to war between May of 1998 to June of 2000 using modern airplanes and tanks. The conflict caused the death of over seventy thousand lives and millions of dollars – a resources both poor nations are ill equipped to handle.

Today there are thousands of soldiers on both sides of the boarder waiting for an excuse to start the conflict over again. The Woyane regime in Ethiopia spends millions of dollars to maintain one of the largest armed forces in Africa, uses scarce foreign exchange to purchase military hardware from East Europe and large sums of money on propaganda to keep the level of anxiety high, use it as a wedge issue to divide the population and is constantly beating the drums of war to create fear and uncertainty.

We Ethiopians welcomed Woyane into our capital without a single shot being fired in anger. The Derg was despised by all sector of society and its downfall was celebrated and a cause for hope and a new beginning. Except for a few remnants of Derg and its Party members no one mourned the demise of Megistu and his comrades. Unbeknown to us and most unfortunate for our nation the new liberators did not come equipped with open heart, hope for the future and love for anything Ethiopia. We should have known at the outset that things do not bode well for our people and country when the midget warlord first words of wisdom was to trample our flag and question our unity. We are harvesting this evil and petty mentality for the last twenty one years and the death of the evil kingpin does not seem to have made any difference.

Where we stand today is what this paper is all about and not to hash ancient history, shift blame and find a scapegoat for our failure to build a just and democratic Ethiopia. By all indications it has become clear the Woyane warlords in power are not interested in peace, harmony and respect for fellow citizens to be involved in the rebuilding of our country.

Independent parties are demonized to no end and abused to the extent that being elected a leader of the opposition is the most dangerous job in our country. The media is controlled by the party and there is not even the semblance of a fine line between the State and the TPLF party. The Woyane group has made it clear on many occasions and dared the opposition to pick up arms if they really want to share power. Anybody that is advocating a peaceful means to get rid of Woyane is only either burying their head in the sand or completely overtaken by delusion and wishful thinking.

We are forced to fight to be free and regain a sense of dignity to be able build a peaceful and harmonious society where our children could live in peace, our people can taste liberty and our mountains and streams can be utilized to sustain our growing population. No one chooses war over peace but there comes a time when one has to stand up stiffen the spine and do what is necessary to protect life and liberty. We have produced many groups that have resolved to do just that.

Like everything in life the only way to prove ones theory is to put it to practice. There is no guarantee success will be achieved fast, harmony will reign at a drop of a hat and the road will be easy. Experience have shown it to be a tortuous journey with plenty of pitfalls. Our country has sacrificed many sons and daughters that have stood for what they believe and given their life to bring freedom and dignity to all of the children of Ethiopia. Every one of us have lost a loved one, a close friend a relative or a neighbor in one of the many patriotic organizations such as EPRP, OLF, TPDM, ONLF, ALF, Kinijit, Andenet, Semayawi and plenty other beautiful freedom loving groupings that dared to stand up on our behalf.

Today the geopolitical situation in our neighborhood has become very complicated for one easy answer. The rise of Islamic militarism, the breakdown of Somalia the international isolation of Sudan, the demonizing of Eritrea by the West have created a very difficult and a challenging state of affairs to traverse for our political leaders. Compared to the situation we are in today fighting the Imperial regime and the Derg can be considered a walk in the park. There were many places to catch ones breath and regroup to fight another day.

Where do we Ethiopians prepare, get the training and organize to confront the ethnic thugs lording it over us is a very important and vital question. Fortunate for us there is Eritrea that due to circumstances we have come to forge a common ground. Today fate and our God have forced us to help each other overcome adversity. One can say we are very lucky. The job has to be done with or without Eritrea but the cooperation with our cousins has the benefit of reducing our sacrifice and hasten the day of our liberation.

This is exactly the reason we find all Ethiopian liberation fronts and opposition groups welcomed in Eritrea. To be sure the Eritrean government have its own interest in mind for helping us get rid of Woyane warlords. As they say all nations act out of selfish interest. There is no such animal called selfless act. The Eritreans have their own axe to grind when it comes to their old Woyane friends. We Ethiopians have our own interest in mind when we impose on our family from the north to accommodate us while working for our freedom. Both of us have come to realize that we have a confluence of interest at this particular point in time. It is no different than the US working with its arch enemy Iran to destroy and degrade what is called the ISIS threat. Conflict creates strange bed fellows and that is the nature of geo politics.

What we have at the moment is various Ethiopian organizations using setting up offices and training centers in Eritrea to confront degrade and destroy the cancerous growth called Woyane. It is not a simple task by any stretch of the imagination. TPLF controls a country with unlimited resources that can be used to preserve the power of a few at the expense of the many. We are fighting an enemy that is using our own people and financed by our own money. Furthermore due to narrow interest and mistaken policy the rich west and China have aligned themselves with our enemy making our task a little bit more difficult.

More difficult does not mean impossible. We just have to work harder and smarter. We have to show Woyane that we are capable of defending ourselves, prove to their enablers that their long term is better served allying with us and convince our people the future will be darker and more bleak if Woyane is allowed to stay around one more day than necessary. It is a tall order but no one said achieving independence and determining ones future is an easy matter. We witnessed the sacrifice paid by the Eritreans to reach the goal of standing tall on ones two feet. Yes we do not have to go far to site an example.

To quote President Kennedy we Ethiopians ‘..shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.’ That is what our combatants are doing from the deserts of Eritrea. They are paying the price so our children will live in peace. We honor, celebrate and are proud of those that have decided to pay the ultimate price in the quest for liberty. We are most grateful to the government and people of Eritrea that have under difficult circumstances opened their doors and wallets so we can do the job that could only be done by us the stake holders. We have a debt to pay if not today but hopefully by our children tomorrow whose life would be made easier due to the good will of our family from the north.

I am sure some of you would think that I have gone overboard with my praise of Eritrea. A few would object that I have not raised the issue of Democracy and good governance in Eritrea. I plead guilty on both points. I really believe both objections are not valid at all. When someone invites you to their home and share the limited resource of the family to finish the job you set up to do I do not think it is good manners not to thank your host and show appreciation. As for the second issue I felt it should be left to the Eritreans to work on whatever problem they currently have. For a tenacious people that sacrificed so much in pursuit of Independence and self- determination I believe they are up to the job of righting what they believe wrong.

My hands are currently full dealing with a varmint that is sucking my blood and causing me untold misery and pain. I have no inclination not do I have the moral authority to rant about other people’s business. I do not stress about Sudan, I never stay up nights thinking about Somalia nor do I make Kenya a Starbucks discussion why as an Ethiopian I would want to editorialize regarding the Eritrean condition is not clear at all.

Finally I would not attempt to try answer the questions raised by Ethiopian Review. It would not solve the problem we are having and unfortunately there is not an alternative being offered to offset what is alleged to be Eritrea’s attempt to muzzle the Fronts operating from their country. I find the charges leveled to be without merit and go against all logic. I would consider it to be self-destructive policy for the Eritrean Government that has not shown any love to the Woyane regime. Why they would kill, torture and abuse the forces that are attempting to overthrow their common enemy does not seem to make sense for a rational thinking mind. Why would they allow them to set camp in their country and turn around weaken them is not a logical argument nor a sound and reasonable proposition.

In my humble opinion ER failed to make a solid case and relied on half-truth, innuendos and second hand stories that seem to serve the speakers interest rather than the group. The so called ‘audio’ presentations being doled out in small clips are nothing but a marketing ploy to increase google ads. It is a sad day for professional Journalism when even if true the musings of disgruntled individuals is taken as factual truth and presented as news. Hate and negativity has some times the effect being the cause of what is called the inability not to see the forest for the trees. That is what is afflicting the ER editors.

There is one more issue I would like to raise in tandem with this question we are trying to come to terms with. It is an important lesson that we should be familiar with since we now have a negative experience we went thru to learn from. The issue is self-determination and the most appropriate way to handle such an important concept. The late Woyane warlord has left us with a time bomb ticking.

In order to govern for a short time and amass money using criminal means TPLF have used what is called Nations and Nationalities concept to divide and conquer. For twenty years TPLF has managed to distort, [deleted] and define it to suit their nihilistic purpose. Today how we deal with this burning issue is a very important matter and have to be careful not to drop the ball like the last time around and leave our children with another vexing problem.

May I suggest we closely study the manner the issue was discussed and the civilized way the opposing sides presented their case in the recent referendum carried out in Scotland. I urge you my friends to see how no one was demonized, old history dug from the grave and used to attack the integrity of one’s opponent. We owe our people that much. I am also aware the issue I have raised would invite Woyane supporters and their minority but loud puppies to cry foul, call me names and try to confuse the issue. Settle down and present your argument in a rational manner, we are capable of listing to both sides and making up our mind with the interest of all of Ethiopia in our heart. I say to all cadres -Amor Vincit Omnia-Love Conquers All!

You Can't Understand ISIS If You Don't Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

By Alastair Crooke, The World Post
August 28, 2014

BEIRUT -- The dramatic arrival of Da'ish (ISIS) on the stage of Iraq has shocked many in the West. Many have been perplexed -- and horrified -- by its violence and its evident magnetism for Sunni youth. But more than this, they find Saudi Arabia's ambivalence in the face of this manifestation both troubling and inexplicable, wondering, "Don't the Saudis understand that ISIS threatens them, too?"

It appears -- even now -- that Saudi Arabia's ruling elite is divided. Some applaud that ISIS is fighting Iranian Shiite "fire" with Sunni "fire"; that a new Sunni state is taking shape at the very heart of what they regard as a historical Sunni patrimony; and they are drawn by Da'ish's strict Salafist ideology.

Other Saudis are more fearful, and recall the history of the revolt against Abd-al Aziz by the Wahhabist Ikhwan (Disclaimer: this Ikhwan has nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan -- please note, all further references hereafter are to the Wahhabist Ikhwan, and not to the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan), but which nearly imploded Wahhabism and the al-Saud in the late 1920s.

Many Saudis are deeply disturbed by the radical doctrines of Da'ish (ISIS) -- and are beginning to question some aspects of Saudi Arabia's direction and discourse.

THE SAUDI DUALITY

Saudi Arabia's internal discord and tensions over ISIS can only be understood by grasping the inherent (and persisting) duality that lies at the core of the Kingdom's doctrinal makeup and its historical origins.

One dominant strand to the Saudi identity pertains directly to Muhammad ibn ?Abd al-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism), and the use to which his radical, exclusionist puritanism was put by Ibn Saud. (The latter was then no more than a minor leader -- amongst many -- of continually sparring and raiding Bedouin tribes in the baking and desperately poor deserts of the Nejd.)

The second strand to this perplexing duality, relates precisely to King Abd-al Aziz's subsequent shift towards statehood in the 1920s: his curbing of Ikhwani violence (in order to have diplomatic standing as a nation-state with Britain and America); his institutionalization of the original Wahhabist impulse -- and the subsequent seizing of the opportunely surging petrodollar spigot in the 1970s, to channel the volatile Ikhwani current away from home towards export -- by diffusing a cultural revolution, rather than violent revolution throughout the Muslim world.

But this "cultural revolution" was no docile reformism. It was a revolution based on Abd al-Wahhab's Jacobin-like hatred for the putrescence and deviationism that he perceived all about him -- hence his call to purge Islam of all its heresies and idolatries.

MUSLIM IMPOSTORS

The American author and journalist, Steven Coll, has written how this austere and censorious disciple of the 14th century scholar Ibn Taymiyyah, Abd al-Wahhab, despised "the decorous, arty, tobacco smoking, hashish imbibing, drum pounding Egyptian and Ottoman nobility who travelled across Arabia to pray at Mecca."

In Abd al-Wahhab's view, these were not Muslims; they were imposters masquerading as Muslims. Nor, indeed, did he find the behavior of local Bedouin Arabs much better. They aggravated Abd al-Wahhab by their honoring of saints, by their erecting of tombstones, and their "superstition" (e.g. revering graves or places that were deemed particularly imbued with the divine).

All this behavior, Abd al-Wahhab denounced as bida -- forbidden by God.

Like Taymiyyah before him, Abd al-Wahhab believed that the period of the Prophet Muhammad's stay in Medina was the ideal of Muslim society (the "best of times"), to which all Muslims should aspire to emulate (this, essentially, is Salafism).

Taymiyyah had declared war on Shi'ism, Sufism and Greek philosophy. He spoke out, too against visiting the grave of the prophet and the celebration of his birthday, declaring that all such behavior represented mere imitation of the Christian worship of Jesus as God (i.e. idolatry). Abd al-Wahhab assimilated all this earlier teaching, stating that "any doubt or hesitation" on the part of a believer in respect to his or her acknowledging this particular interpretation of Islam should "deprive a man of immunity of his property and his life."

One of the main tenets of Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine has become the key idea of takfir. Under the takfiri doctrine, Abd al-Wahhab and his followers could deem fellow Muslims infidels should they engage in activities that in any way could be said to encroach on the sovereignty of the absolute Authority (that is, the King). Abd al-Wahhab denounced all Muslims who honored the dead, saints, or angels. He held that such sentiments detracted from the complete subservience one must feel towards God, and only God. Wahhabi Islam thus bans any prayer to saints and dead loved ones, pilgrimages to tombs and special mosques, religious festivals celebrating saints, the honoring of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad's birthday, and even prohibits the use of gravestones when burying the dead.

"Those who would not conform to this view should be killed, their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. "

Abd al-Wahhab demanded conformity -- a conformity that was to be demonstrated in physical and tangible ways. He argued that all Muslims must individually pledge their allegiance to a single Muslim leader (a Caliph, if there were one). Those who would not conform to this view should be killed , their wives and daughters violated, and their possessions confiscated, he wrote. The list of apostates meriting death included the Shiite, Sufis and other Muslim denominations, whom Abd al-Wahhab did not consider to be Muslim at all.

There is nothing here that separates Wahhabism from ISIS. The rift would emerge only later: from the subsequent institutionalization of Muhammad ibn ?Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine of "One Ruler, One Authority, One Mosque" -- these three pillars being taken respectively to refer to the Saudi king, the absolute authority of official Wahhabism, and its control of "the word" (i.e. the mosque).

It is this rift -- the ISIS denial of these three pillars on which the whole of Sunni authority presently rests -- makes ISIS, which in all other respects conforms to Wahhabism, a deep threat to Saudi Arabia.

BRIEF HISTORY 1741- 1818

Abd al-Wahhab's advocacy of these ultra radical views inevitably led to his expulsion from his own town -- and in 1741, after some wanderings, he found refuge under the protection of Ibn Saud and his tribe. What Ibn Saud perceived in Abd al-Wahhab's novel teaching was the means to overturn Arab tradition and convention. It was a path to seizing power.

"Their strategy -- like that of ISIS today -- was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. "

Ibn Saud's clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.

In the beginning, they conquered a few local communities and imposed their rule over them. (The conquered inhabitants were given a limited choice: conversion to Wahhabism or death.) By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula and repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq.

Their strategy -- like that of ISIS today -- was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: "They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein... slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants ..."

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, "we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: 'And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.'"

In 1803, Abdul Aziz then entered the Holy City of Mecca, which surrendered under the impact of terror and panic (the same fate was to befall Medina, too). Abd al-Wahhab's followers demolished historical monuments and all the tombs and shrines in their midst. By the end, they had destroyed centuries of Islamic architecture near the Grand Mosque.

But in November of 1803, a Shiite assassin killed King Abdul Aziz (taking revenge for the massacre at Karbala). His son, Saud bin Abd al Aziz, succeeded him and continued the conquest of Arabia. Ottoman rulers, however, could no longer just sit back and watch as their empire was devoured piece by piece. In 1812, the Ottoman army, composed of Egyptians, pushed the Alliance out from Medina, Jeddah and Mecca. In 1814, Saud bin Abd al Aziz died of fever. His unfortunate son Abdullah bin Saud, however, was taken by the Ottomans to Istanbul, where he was gruesomely executed (a visitor to Istanbul reported seeing him having been humiliated in the streets of Istanbul for three days, then hanged and beheaded, his severed head fired from a canon, and his heart cut out and impaled on his body).

In 1815, Wahhabi forces were crushed by the Egyptians (acting on the Ottoman's behalf) in a decisive battle. In 1818, the Ottomans captured and destroyed the Wahhabi capital of Dariyah. The first Saudi state was no more. The few remaining Wahhabis withdrew into the desert to regroup, and there they remained, quiescent for most of the 19th century.

HISTORY RETURNS WITH ISIS

It is not hard to understand how the founding of the Islamic State by ISIS in contemporary Iraq might resonate amongst those who recall this history. Indeed, the ethos of 18th century Wahhabism did not just wither in Nejd, but it roared back into life when the Ottoman Empire collapsed amongst the chaos of World War I.

The Al Saud -- in this 20th century renaissance -- were led by the laconic and politically astute Abd-al Aziz, who, on uniting the fractious Bedouin tribes, launched the Saudi "Ikhwan" in the spirit of Abd-al Wahhab's and Ibn Saud's earlier fighting proselytisers.

The Ikhwan was a reincarnation of the early, fierce, semi-independent vanguard movement of committed armed Wahhabist "moralists" who almost had succeeded in seizing Arabia by the early 1800s. In the same manner as earlier, the Ikhwan again succeeded in capturing Mecca, Medina and Jeddah between 1914 and 1926. Abd-al Aziz, however, began to feel his wider interests to be threatened by the revolutionary "Jacobinism" exhibited by the Ikhwan. The Ikhwan revolted -- leading to a civil war that lasted until the 1930s, when the King had them put down: he machine-gunned them.

For this king, (Abd-al Aziz), the simple verities of previous decades were eroding. Oil was being discovered in the peninsular. Britain and America were courting Abd-al Aziz, but still were inclined to support Sharif Husain as the only legitimate ruler of Arabia. The Saudis needed to develop a more sophisticated diplomatic posture.

So Wahhabism was forcefully changed from a movement of revolutionary jihad and theological takfiri purification, to a movement of conservative social, political, theological, and religious da'wa (Islamic call) and to justifying the institution that upholds loyalty to the royal Saudi family and the King's absolute power.

OIL WEALTH SPREAD WAHHABISM

With the advent of the oil bonanza -- as the French scholar, Giles Kepel writes, Saudi goals were to "reach out and spread Wahhabism across the Muslim world ... to "Wahhabise" Islam, thereby reducing the "multitude of voices within the religion" to a "single creed" -- a movement which would transcend national divisions. Billions of dollars were -- and continue to be -- invested in this manifestation of soft power.

It was this heady mix of billion dollar soft power projection -- and the Saudi willingness to manage Sunni Islam both to further America's interests, as it concomitantly embedded Wahhabism educationally, socially and culturally throughout the lands of Islam -- that brought into being a western policy dependency on Saudi Arabia, a dependency that has endured since Abd-al Aziz's meeting with Roosevelt on a U.S. warship (returning the president from the Yalta Conference) until today.

Westerners looked at the Kingdom and their gaze was taken by the wealth; by the apparent modernization; by the professed leadership of the Islamic world. They chose to presume that the Kingdom was bending to the imperatives of modern life -- and that the management of Sunni Islam would bend the Kingdom, too, to modern life.

"On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism."

But the Saudi Ikhwan approach to Islam did not die in the 1930s. It retreated, but it maintained its hold over parts of the system -- hence the duality that we observe today in the Saudi attitude towards ISIS.

On the one hand, ISIS is deeply Wahhabist. On the other hand, it is ultra radical in a different way. It could be seen essentially as a corrective movement to contemporary Wahhabism.

ISIS is a "post-Medina" movement: it looks to the actions of the first two Caliphs, rather than the Prophet Muhammad himself, as a source of emulation, and it forcefully denies the Saudis' claim of authority to rule.

As the Saudi monarchy blossomed in the oil age into an ever more inflated institution, the appeal of the Ikhwan message gained ground (despite King Faisal's modernization campaign). The "Ikhwan approach" enjoyed -- and still enjoys -- the support of many prominent men and women and sheikhs. In a sense, Osama bin Laden was precisely the representative of a late flowering of this Ikhwani approach.

Today, ISIS' undermining of the legitimacy of the King's legitimacy is not seen to be problematic, but rather a return to the true origins of the Saudi-Wahhab project.

In the collaborative management of the region by the Saudis and the West in pursuit of the many western projects (countering socialism, Ba'athism, Nasserism, Soviet and Iranian influence), western politicians have highlighted their chosen reading of Saudi Arabia (wealth, modernization and influence), but they chose to ignore the Wahhabist impulse.

After all, the more radical Islamist movements were perceived by Western intelligence services as being more effective in toppling the USSR in Afghanistan -- and in combatting out-of-favor Middle Eastern leaders and states.

Why should we be surprised then, that from Prince Bandar's Saudi-Western mandate to manage the insurgency in Syria against President Assad should have emerged a neo-Ikhwan type of violent, fear-inducing vanguard movement: ISIS? And why should we be surprised -- knowing a little about Wahhabism -- that "moderate" insurgents in Syria would become rarer than a mythical unicorn? Why should we have imagined that radical Wahhabism would create moderates? Or why could we imagine that a doctrine of "One leader, One authority, One mosque: submit to it, or be killed" could ever ultimately lead to moderation or tolerance?

Or, perhaps, we never imagined.

--
The writer, Alastair Crooke, is a former MI-6 agent, and author of 'Resistance: The Essence of Islamic Revolution'